Religion as a factor

[Fawkes]

Generally speaking, how ready a country is for a socialist revolution is based on how industriallized it is. Another factor that people fail to think about is how "die-hard" religious the majority of the population of that country or region is. For this reason, I feel that the Middle Eastern countries will most likely be the last to experience socialist revolutions because it will take the longest there for tthe majority of the population to reject their hard-line religious views.

Thoughts or comments?

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

I agree many cpuntries are so tied down with religion, even oppressed that they will not change their views easily.

[Kia]

Even though i believe the erradication of religion is needed for anarchy, communism, etc.. to form, its not possible to get rid of it. Not all religion contradicts or is against leftist politics; we just need to create a change in theology that would allow for these forms of government (or lack of) to flourish.

I agree with Freedom for all...ALL that if a global revolution was to happen right now, the middle east would be one of the last to change.

[Janus]

I've discussed the issue of religion with some Middle Eastern comrades out there. They attest to the fact that the main reason behind the power of the fundamentalists is because of the US and foreign western influence. I think that as the Middle East continues to develop, the secularization will help to loose much of the religious and reactionary values just as the radical religious groups will continue to loose their influence in the US.

[Conghaileach]

It will be impossible to stamp out religion, because attempts to suppress it will simply drive it underground and create enemies of its followers. That being said, religious people can be socialists and whether or not they believe in a god or gods won't necessarily affect their views on the nature of the class struggle.

The important thing to do is to challenge the reactionary political aspects of these fundamentalists - those who want creationism taught in schools, who believe homosexuals (and women, in some cases) should have no rights, who oppose stem cell research, divorce, etc. etc - as well as those who make a political issue of religion in any way.

There are of course Christian, Jewish and Muslim socialists and liberation theologists and all that, but I personally think that every socialist's politics should be secular and thus inclusive for people of all and no religions.

[Fawkes]

There are of course Christian, Jewish and Muslim socialists and liberation theologists and all that, but I personally think that every socialist's politics should be secular and thus inclusive for people of all and no religions.

I never said that they shouldn't. Unlike some other people, I don't feel that religion should be abolished but rather, I feel that the majority of people will reject religion once they are freed from the restraints of a central government because their minds will emancipate themselves once the lives are freed from the gov't.

[cubist]

It will be impossible to stamp out religion, because attempts to suppress it will simply drive it underground and create enemies of its followers. That being said, religious people can be socialists and whether or not they believe in a god or gods won't necessarily affect their views on the nature of the class struggle.
NO and yes, most socialist countries that did exist didn't destroy the religious structures, Stalin commisioned a cathedral at public expense,

castro did the same, in some instance utilising the religious weakness of a nation would make a revolution easier in others it would be harder to do.

america for example where people are religious out of tradition or fear of being frowned on my the townsmen and women of pointless suburbia. This would be hard to utilise cus of the brainwashed mindless catastrophe that is americas hard right christian system.

in britain it will be the lack of religious strong hold taht would infact make it easier.

the church in the UK is divided into 5 major sections (baptists, CofE, catholic, Methodists, New Life) and then divided again inside that. plus muslims hindus harre krishnas, jews, sikhs, rastas, no government can rely on its religous background to have a strong support anymore.

Especially with teh Politically correctness on insighting racial and religious hatred.



The important thing to do is to challenge the reactionary political aspects of these fundamentalists - those who want creationism taught in schools, who believe homosexuals (and women, in some cases) should have no rights, who oppose stem cell research, divorce, etc. etc - as well as those who make a political issue of religion in any way.


YES, allthough the irony about G W Bush is un believable.

he is against marrying gays, but is happy for rumsfield's daughter being a lesbian and being pregnant.


There are of course Christian, Jewish and Muslim socialists and liberation theologists and all that, but I personally think that every socialist's politics should be secular and thus inclusive for people of all and no religions.

peopel who have religious views might share moral values of socialists, but the rightwing leaders and co-ordinators of the religious who decide what is what and how it is to be interpretted will use GOD's Will to get what ever polotical agenda across they can, this includes the relinquishing of free speech and free thinking for most religions, therefore religous beliefs and soclialism are incompatible